Sighing, CNN & hybrid working: A deep dive into current Employment Law cases

In this episode of The Employment Law Pod, Partners Andrew Whiteaker and Helen Goss dissect a series of recent and thought-provoking employment law developments: 

Sighing as Discrimination?
They begin with the case of Watson v Roke Manor Research, where a manager’s non-verbal expressions such as sighing, eye-rolling, and huffing were deemed discriminatory toward an employee with ADHD. The discussion explores how microaggressions and unconscious bias can contribute to a hostile work environment, and why employers must take reasonable adjustments seriously. 

CNN and Cross-Border Employment Rights
Next, Helen breaks down CNN v Bhatti, a case involving a British journalist injured abroad who challenged CNN's attempt to block her UK tribunal claims. Despite a US-governed contract and overseas assignments, the courts found a strong enough UK connection for the case to proceed, offering a valuable reminder about jurisdictional reach in employment law. 

Hybrid Working: A Growing Flashpoint
Andy revisits the ever-evolving topic of hybrid working, focusing on HSBC's directive tying office attendance to performance reviews and bonuses. They examine trends across major employers (Barclays, Santander, PwC) and discuss the potential impact on employee satisfaction and retention, particularly when workers moved during the pandemic. 

A Garden, a Meeting, and a Tribunal
Finally, they cover a quirky but relevant tribunal case where an employee’s refusal to attend a face-to-face mediation, opting instead to supervise gardeners at home while joining via Teams, was cited by the employer as blameworthy conduct. The tribunal disagreed, underscoring ongoing tensions around remote vs. in-person expectations. 

Episode Links

• Visit our website
• Contact us
• Our Employment services
• Our HR training

Chapters

• 1:40 Sighing as Disability Discrimination
• 10:26 CNN's Global Jurisdiction Battle
• 17:03 The Rise and Resistance of Hybrid Working
• 25:34 Teams vs In-Person: Gardener supervision case

Transcript

Andrew Whiteaker: 0:04 

Hello and welcome to the Employment Law Pod from Boyes Turner. My name's Andy Whiteaker. I'm a partner in the Employment Team. As ever with the Employment Law Pod, we're going to be today talking about some interesting cases, some developments that we've seen in employment law of late and discussing what they might mean for you and your businesses. And I'm pleased to say as well that my usual collaborator, Helen Goss, also a fellow partner in the employment team, is with me again today. 

Helen Goss: 0:31 

Hello everyone. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 0:33 

So, Helen, what are we going to be talking about today? 

Helen Goss: 0:36 

Well, Andy, there are a couple of quite interesting cases that have just come down from the Court of Appeal over the last week or so. So there's a case about sighing in frustration, which could be discriminatory. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 0:49 

Well, I'm concerned to hear that because the amount of sighing in frustration that happens in the office on a daily basis does give me cause for concern. 

Helen Goss: 0:57 

Exactly. Then there's a case where CNN, the broadcaster, lost a bid to block a journalist from suing in the UK. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 1:05 

I know this is something that's very much in your court, isn't it? Having acted in similar cases in the past. 

Helen Goss: 1:08 

My very famous case in the House of Lords. Exactly, then you're going to be talking about recent developments in the world of hybrid working, because that's a constant topic of discussion, isn't it? It is, that's right, and then I think there's also a related case about someone who refused to attend a meeting in person. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 1:30 

So that's right, a tribunal case, but an interesting one nonetheless, Exactly. 

Helen Goss: 1:35 

Okay, so Andy sighing in frustration. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 1:40 

Go on, then. What's this all about? 

Helen Goss: 1:42 

So the case is Watson versus Roque Manor Research and I looked into what Roque Manor Research did and apparently it's quite interesting. Actually they make ball tracking systems used in tennis, cricket and football. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 1:56 

Oh, the sort of Hawkeye type things. Yeah, it is the Hawkeye. Ah, there you go. That's what they make. 

Helen Goss: 2:01 

Yeah, exactly, so this case is very recent, in May 2025. So, Mr Watson, he was a software engineer at the company and had been employed since 2020. Now it's reported and, I think, generally agreed that his timekeeping was fairly poor. He was very easily distracted and had difficulties focusing. So in 2022, in November 2022, he was diagnosed with ADHD and, as you will know, it's very likely that ADHD would be considered to be a disability. Yeah, and this case is about disability discrimination. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 2:42 

Okay. 

Helen Goss: 2:45 

So he started taking medication and I think that that had quite a big impact on him taking quite strong medication and he took four days sick and I think that it's again agreed that the manager was clearly quite irritated by this and then started a campaign although I don't suppose the manager thought he was starting a campaign, but he started the hours of work, the patterns of work. He also started exhibiting non-verbal frustration, so sighing, exaggerating exhalation and, of course, when then the individual, Mr Watson, went absent with work-related stress in February 2023, matters got even worse because he then brought a claim for disability discrimination. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 3:36 

OK. 

Helen Goss: 3:36 

He was then sacked several months later. So when it got to court it was found that the manager's behaviour was discriminatory. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 3:47 

OK, so on what basis? How's that? 

Helen Goss: 3:49 

Well, there's two bases. One was his non-verbal, which I'll talk about in a second, but also the failure by the business to look at reasonable adjustments for Mr Watson. So what the judge actually said I'm just going to read this bit because it's quite interesting. Actually, the reason for expressions of frustration arose from things which themselves arose from Mr Watson's disability, such as timekeeping and working patterns. So even though the manager was generally very frustrated, it was for reasons relating to Mr Watson's disability. So that link was working with. With the necessary support, it's entirely possible the manager would not himself have suffered with such work pressure and the discrimination might have been avoided. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 5:01 

Okay. 

Helen Goss: 5:03 

So, it's a sort of an escalation, really, wasn't it? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 5:04 

Yes, there could have been interventions that were made earlier that could have sort of nipped this in the bud, if you like. 

Helen Goss: 5:09 

Yes yeah, but, but I think so. Coming to the first point, which was his non-verbal expressions of frustration, I was trying to think well, what would those be? Yes, sighing and huffing, but also potentially avoiding eye contact or rolling your eyes. 

Helen Goss: 5:28 

Rolling your eyes, throwing your hands up in the air yeah, or even potentially crossing your arms absolutely facial expressions which, as you say, is the eye rolling, and then there's also keeping a distance, so not really engaging with the individual. And then I was also thinking about dominant stances, which I think perhaps relate to sexual harassment or sex discrimination, where a man who perhaps is a lot bigger than a female, can stand too close or because of the large size potentially of that individual, it can be quite overbearing and disrespectful and amount to harassment, the way that someone stands over you, etc. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 6:13 

Yeah, I think that's interesting because there have been times in the past where politicians or business leaders have been sort of slightly mocked for how they've stood when giving conference speeches or something like that, looking big legs slightly apart, and when there's been some gentle mockery of that, it's been pointed out that actually they've been taught to do this because it's about asserting this dominance and this strength, this sort of power pose if you like, 

Helen Goss: 6:50 

Exactly, and of course, that may have some positive aspects to it, but then there could, depending on the particular circumstances, be some negative aspects. 

And then the other one I was thinking about was looking at your phone whilst talking to someone. Yeah, that's fairly dismissive of what someone is saying to you, isn't it? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 7:01 

If you do that, yes, and I think more and more of us will admit. I think that we have a slight issue with our phones, you know, putting them down and not touching them at all. I know I get told off at dinner time for looking at mine, for example, so it's, it's something that we're all prone to. Yeah, just picking it up and looking at it from time to time yeah. 

Helen Goss: 7:14 

So those are just a few examples and I'm sure there are a lot more that people have either seen or experienced or in fact exhibited. That could be construed as microaggression, really, and and of course then it's not that bigger leap to those becoming potentially discriminatory behaviours to someone, whether that's due to disability or sex or race or sexual orientation sexual orientation, whatever your protected characteristic might be, and it can lead to those allegations. So I suppose there's also the idea that it could be part of unconscious bias. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 7:55 

Yeah, but I suppose it's all about sort of letting your frustration show manifesting I mean, we all have situations that we deal with from time to time that call our frustration and call us anxiety or stress but letting sort of letting that be obvious through the way that we conduct ourselves and exhibiting that disappointment or frustration or anger or whatever it might be. When, as you say, that the reason in this particular case, was obviously the difficulties with managing and working with this individual that is related to that protected characteristic, then yeah, absolutely you can see how that could, that that could flow through and result in some sort of proceedings being issued. 

Helen Goss: 8:45 

Exactly, and you can then create this hostile environment which is is damaging. So then I was thinking well, how would you deal with that? And of course we often, as employment lawyers, come back to this concept of well, if we train people? Yes but then I was mindful of what you talked about, I think at our last podcast on the issue of Trump fluence yes because I am actually seeing some businesses cutting their training budget. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 9:07 

Yeah, no, that's certainly the case, and certainly in particular areas and looking to scale back DE&I training, for example. 

Helen Goss: 9:14 

Yeah, exactly. So that also applies to reasonable adjustments, because there's always an obligation on a business, when someone has a disability, to consider reasonable adjustments. And it's not just the obligation of the individual to come up with potential reasonable adjustments, but the business has to think about how they might be able to assist that person to create that level playing field. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 9:39 

Yeah, and when you hear the idea of, or the concept of diversity hires being spoken about more openly and people challenging and saying well, an individual's been, they're a diversity hire, you've hired them for that particular reason, it's pretty rude, isn't it? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 9:54 

It's extraordinarily rude, but it's something that a few years ago no one would have reasonably have expected to be able to say in the workplace and not to be challenged. Reasonably have expected to be able to say in the workplace and not to be challenged. But the concern is if, if that's a sort of prevalent or or a viewer opinion that's growing in prevalence, if you are expected to make reasonable adjustments for someone, if your attitude towards that individual is well, they're just a diversity hire, aren't they? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 10:18 

that's going to impact upon your willingness or to engage in that process or to consider those adjustments that might be necessary. 

Helen Goss: 10:25 

Yeah, no, exactly. So the second case that I wanted to look at was the CNN case, that's, CNN versus Barty, and it related to a rather well-known journalist called Saima Bharti. So she was a British journalist who was very badly injured on assignment and later fired by CNN and consequently she brought claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination, equal pay, victimisation. So when she brought the claims in the UK, CNN contested the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal as they said that Syma was an international correspondent working primarily across Asia but also in Europe, and that they said that the case should have been brought elsewhere. So, for example, her contract said it was subject to the jurisdiction of Atlanta, which was the headquarters of CNN. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 11:22 

In the US yeah. 

Helen Goss: 11:22 

Yeah, exactly. Or that she should have brought claims in Asia, because that's where she primarily worked, but not in the UK. Sure, so in the first instance in the tribunal, CNN lost. So the tribunal disagreed with the view that CNN put forward and they essentially held that CYMA's employment had sufficient connection with the UK, which is the important factor, and that's the test, isn't? It. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 11:52 

So, notwithstanding what your written contracts of employment might say, your written contracts of employment might say, it's not possible for parties to simply exclude the jurisdiction of the Employment Rights Act through signing a contract. 

Helen Goss: 12:04 

No, I mean what the contract says is the jurisdiction is a factor. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 12:09 

It is a factor, but it's not determinative in and of itself. 

Helen Goss: 12:12 

Exactly. It's not the end of the story where it says where the contract should be construed. So the tribunal said that Sima had enough connection with the UK to establish territorial jurisdiction here in the UK and also international jurisdiction. So we're just going to look really from the UK perspective. So CNN were not happy, presumably because they have quite a lot of foreign correspondence in different parts of the world, but they lost the appeal again in May 25 on both counts. 

Helen Goss: 12:48 

So again according to the Court of Appeal, syma had sufficient connection to the UK, despite a contract being governed by US law and most of her work being done actually in Asia. So what the tribunal and then the Court of Appeal decided was that this was an evaluative process and that a number of factors had to be taken into account to decide where she was able to bring a claim. So they found that she was a peripatetic employee. She was based in Bangkok and London, but not from CNN's Asia Pacific Bureau, which was based in Hong Kong. After her injury, which was really quite significant to her foot, she was largely based in London. So she'd last regularly worked in London and the dispute was linked to behaviours from CNN's London office. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 13:42 

OK, so you can see how there's some connections being drawn here. 

Helen Goss: 13:58 

Yeah, so she returned from Asia to London for medical treatment because London was her home. And it found that she had a clear professional objective to work from a London base with less travel because then of her disability, the injury to her foot, which was significant and long lasting. So she was very actively engaged with the London Bureau. So she had an office pass, she had an ID pass, she appeared on their internal communications as being based in that office. She was only deployed by the CNN Bureau in London on one occasion because then CNN blocked all future deployments and further assignments and of course that's all then part of the downward slide to her dismissal and the claims that she raised. So I think that Serco and Lawson was one of the first cases and in fact I looked that up, it was 2006,. Andy. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 14:45 

Oh crikey, I know yeah. 

Helen Goss: 14:46 

That's 19 years ago, and of course that was very limited in that it was just unfair dismissal rights. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 14:51 

But it's unfair dismissal rights deriving from, you know, the employment rights act and it's about the jurisdiction of the employment. 

Helen Goss: 15:01 

it was the jurisdiction because he was a security bar guard based in the ascension islands. But obviously there's been a lot of cases and the case law, and therefore the law relevant to this situation, has evolved significantly yes and now Sima is being able to, is able to bring claims not just for unfair dismissal but also discrimination, so there's been a significant movement. I think she also had claims for equal pay and victimization yeah it's all been remitted back to the employment tribunal. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 15:24 

Yes, so whether those claims are successful or not, we don't know and that will be subject to exactly from the tribunal in due course. 

Helen Goss: 15:38 

Exactly so. Just factors to take into account is the HQ of the employer, where travels begin and end, the location of the employee's home, where and in which currency they're paid, where their management is, where they pay tax. There's a whole host of factors and, as I said before, it's an evaluative process to determine where does this person have the most connection to allow them to actually bring a claim. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 16:09 

Yeah, but I suppose, in summary, it's just a useful reminder rather than necessarily making any new law. It's just a useful reminder that, again, you can enter into a contract with someone where you conclude that their place of work is a particular location and that the laws of that location will apply. But that is not in and of itself determinative and it may well be that individuals who are working in the UK and have that strong enough connection with the UK, regardless of what their contract might say, that may be sufficient for them to have the ability to bring claims in the UK and under the jurisdiction of the tribunals. 

Helen Goss: 16:47 

Yeah, exactly. 

So, andy, let's get back to hybrid working, because it is a constant topic of conversation and policy making at the moment, isn't it? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 17:03 

It does feel like we're talking about it a lot on this podcast and other places as well, and while I think it's appropriate to do so, it's also important to remember that this is not necessarily a niche issue, but it's affecting a minority of the working population in the UK, and we always have to remember that recent survey found that there's only 28 percent of the UK workforce that work in a hybrid fashion, so it's actually quite a small, you know, less than 30 percent. 

Helen Goss: 17:30 

I suppose if you work in retail, leisure and hospitality, if you're on a production line in a factory or a warehouse, you have to be present for your working hours, don't you? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 17:41 

exactly that, exactly that. But you know there are still proportions of the population that do work in a hybrid fashion. They tend to be older professional roles as well. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 17:52 

It also tends to be in particularly finance, banking, that sort of thing law law as well that those sort of professions, and so, invariably, it's these sort of companies that that tend to make the headlines when they change their stances in their approach here, and the most recent one and an interesting development has been around HSBC UK, so that's their retail and domestic commercial banking arm. Now, back in 2023, they imposed a requirement for employees to work at least 60% of their time in an office environment. 

Helen Goss: 18:24 

So presumably, Andy, before that they'd been like the rest of us, that when COVID hit then everybody had to work from home. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 18:32 

Yeah, everyone navigating their way out of the pandemic and working out what's best and what's most appropriate, but in 2023, they they reached their 60% decision. Yeah, but what's happened now is that there's now been a direction given to managers to more closely monitor attendance of their colleagues, big brother, yeah, are they actually hitting those 60 attendance expectations and that when PDMs or sort of appraisals are taking place, the success or failure or the ability to hit that 60% threshold will be taken into consideration and flowing through from that is variable pay. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 19:14 

So it might mean that if individuals are not meeting those 60% attendance requirements, then that may affect their bonuses and their variable remuneration that they receive. So this is part of a continued trend that we're seeing very much in financial services but also more broadly I think as well, of businesses requiring, you know, continuing increased attendance levels in the workplace. Santander, for example, three days they're asking for now. PWC in September they said that they're going to be tracking to ensure that people are putting their three days a week either in the office or attending a client location. Barclays in January went up from two to three days. So we're not seeing in most cases although there are some examples in Wall Street in the US of there being a complete return to work mandate we are seeing increased expectations around office attendance and this does cause some tension. So, for example, there was a study recently done by King's College London that found that only 42% of the workforce in the UK or 42% of those polled anyway would comply with a five-day-a-week return to the office mandate. 

Helen Goss: 20:30 

So when you say comply, do you mean that they would refuse to come in five days a week? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 20:36 

So 10% of those people polled said that they would resign immediately. 

Helen Goss: 20:40 

Oh, I see Right. So they would resign. And what Claim? Constructive dismissal. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 20:46 

Well, not necessarily. 

Helen Goss: 20:48 

What's your expression? Quiet resignation, quiet quitting, quiet quitting yeah. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 20:53 

So 42% saying they would not comply. So that might mean raising a grievance, making flexible working requests and maybe in due course then looking for another job because they're unhappy with that. 

Helen Goss: 21:02 

Well, there's a huge rise in flexible working requests, isn't there? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 21:05 

Whereas 10% of those polled said they would just leave immediately, and so this is continuing to cause tension. There was another survey conducted by KPMG last year asking businesses in the financial sector what their attitudes were towards expectations around office attendance. Again, three quarters of those polled said they wanted to see an increase in office attendance and a third of those polled said they were expecting or they wanted to see a minimum of four days a week in the office. 

Helen Goss: 21:37 

It's a big change, isn't it? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 21:39 

It is, it is and, and you know we need to think about the impact of this and and and how. This the context in which we need to look at it. There's been quite a lot of strong feelings around working from home and flexible working and the the you know the benefits and the disadvantages of it, and there are certain advocates for, you know, a hybrid working model or working from home who have posited that this drive to get people back into the office is is is mainly focused around empty office space and people wanting to use the space just because they've got it and they want to see bums on seats. 

Helen Goss: 22:15 

That's a bit one-dimensional, isn't it? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 22:15 

I think it is. I think it is ultimately. You know, these sort of businesses are very profit driven you know they want to do what's more than that yeah, what they think is best now. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 22:23 

They may in due course be proven wrong, possibly, but clearly some individuals have carried out some analysis and said that we think the best thing for our business that will make us work most profitably and get the most out of the assets that we have is to have people working in the office more often than they have been over the last couple of years. 

Helen Goss: 22:42 

And when you talk about assets, you're talking about people,. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 22:46 

But also our resources as well, so it could be office space that is a function of it. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 22:50 

But just you know, when we look at what we've got, how do we get the most out of what we've got? We think we achieve that by having people spending more time working together. Yes, it's the case that people not everyone wants to do that. Businesses should be thinking about why don't they want to do that? What is it that's potentially holding people back or making people not want to attend the office as frequently? Is it because they just can't see the benefits of it? So is there a bit of an educational piece of work to be done there from businesses explaining how they perceive there will be productivity increases and increasing profitability as well, so trying to explain to the employees why this is good for everyone to have people spending more time in the office. Or is it just a question of addressing some of the concerns that individuals might have? 

Andrew Whiteaker: 23:38 

We know that the rise of hybrid working has been a real benefit to those individuals with child care commitments, for example, and so it. How do we address the concerns that individuals might have there? What can we do to provide them with support or any assistance that might be required to enable them to attend the office more frequently and to meet those sort of thresholds that are being expected of them. One thing that we can say is that there was a sort of a hope I guess maybe in the early days after the pandemic of how the rise in hybrid working, flexible working, might result in a sort of levelling up across the country, as all these, all of these bankers and executives and you know, high profile individuals doing the school run can start do the school run and then they can go and work and live in remote locations and they'll bring their money and their wealth and their experience with them. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 24:29 

And some people have done that, Some people have but bearing in mind more and more businesses are expecting individuals to come into the office more and more, it makes it much more difficult for people to go and relocate to the regions, as it were, and therefore we're not necessarily seeing that levelling up that might have been anticipated. 

Helen Goss: 24:48 

No, although I have seen on several occasions, in very different types of business, people who moved during the pandemic to a very distant location from their actual place of work, who now are in a position where they cannot or could only comply with extreme difficulty the requirement to be in the office, for example, three or four days a week. You know, they might I don't know be based in Carlisle and their office be based in London. They can't get there on a daily basis yeah, absolutely so. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 25:18 

There are those those challenges where businesses are expecting, so, where people have decided to move away, where businesses are imposing these mandates it is, it is causing a challenge for the individuals affected. But I did also just want to talk very briefly about a tribunal case, as well, good, because we're doing a bit of a case. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 25:34 

Look at yeah, why not exactly? But this this is not strictly speaking about hybrid working per se. It's actually about an individual who brought a claim for constructive, unfair dismissal around the way that they were managed. In particular, there was a falling out between them and the managing director of the IT services company that they work for. That resulted in an attempted mediation and then discussions and meetings and trying to put a plan in place and the individual gradually becoming more and more frustrated in the way that that was being managed by the business and ultimately resulting in them losing trust and confidence in the business and resigning and looking to bring a claim for a constructive, unfair dismissal. The reason why this has been reported on is because at in the early stages of the process, the individual was invited to attend a meeting with their with the managing director as a sort of clear the air mediation type meeting, and the individual said well, I can't come in person because I've got the gardeners in at my house and. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 26:40 

I need to be working from home because I need to supervise what the gardeners are up to. But I can. I can attend on teams, that's fine, but I just can't come in because I've got to make sure the gardeners are doing what I need them to do. And this became a relevant issue in the tribunal because the respondent suggested that this represented blameworthy conduct on the employee's part. 

Helen Goss: 27:05 

OK, so the respondent potentially overreacted to this they not have set another date when he didn't have supervision of the garden. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 27:14 

So there were further meetings that followed through. So this was at the start of a process that continued for several more meetings and some that even took place face to face. But the specific complaint by the respondent was when the claimant said, well, there's been a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence here and I'm entitled to resign and claim constructive dismissal. The respondent's pushing back and saying, well, you are at least in part to blame for this because you didn't show the mediation attempt that we put in place sufficient seriousness and deference, because you declined to do it in person, and you dismissively said well, I'll join it on teams while I'm supervising my gardeners at home. 

Helen Goss: 27:55 

So a whole load of hurt feelings basically. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 27:57 

Lots of hurt feelings, lots of hurt feelings. So, as ever, it's that sort of thing that makes the headline. Fundamentally, the tribunal concluded that they didn't, so the decision to say, well, I'm gonna, I want to take this call over Teams and to do it remotely, did not constitute culpable or blameworthy conduct on the part of the employee. 

Helen Goss: 28:16 

Yes. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 28:18 

So it's just an interesting little case there about how we're seeing businesses, more and more businesses pushing towards getting people back in the office and, at the same time, we're still seeing things in tribunals where, actually, where people are choosing to attend things remotely, that's not necessarily being seen as as problematic or refusing to provide deal with things with sufficient seriousness, even when it was a mediation meeting yes, well, also, the tribunal is still doing remote online hearings, aren't they? That's a lot to do, resourcing as well, isn't it? 

Helen Goss: 28:49 

ultimately, I think, well maybe, but still yeah these are important meetings in front of the tribunal and they are still being done on a remote basis yeah not not exclusively, but quite often yeah, no, that's right. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 29:01 

Well, look, I mean, there will be more cases. This will continue to be a talking point. Businesses will continue to flex and try and work out what works best for them and even though, like I said, we're talking about less than 30% of the working population in the UK who are actually working in a hybrid fashion, there will continue to be high profile cases. They'll continue to be reported on and we'll probably continue talking about it. 

Helen Goss: 29:26 

Exactly. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 29:26 

Okay, well, that probably wraps us up for today. So, as ever, Helen, thanks for joining me. 

Helen Goss: 29:31 

Thanks Andy. 

Andrew Whiteaker: 29:32 

And thank you all for listening to the Employment Law Pod. If you're interested in checking out any more episodes in this series, then you can go to the Boyes Turner website or, alternatively, you can follow wherever you listen to your podcasts. So thanks again, everybody, and goodbye. 

Helen Goss: 29:47 

Bye everybody.